A Dividing Line Wanted.
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Henry Sturrney.
in connection with the Commercial Vehicle Exhibition at Olympia, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has, as the Editor pointed out at the time, struck a knotty problem, and one which will take a considerable amount of careful and intricate work to uuravel,unless a very drastic and purely arbitrary line is taken. It will be remembered that the whole principle of the society, and indeed one of its chief raisons d'are, is that there should be one show, and one show only, each year, at which the trade should be called upon to exhibit. When it was found not only that Olympia would not hold all the exhibits, alike of pleasure cars, boats and commercial vehicles, which the trade desired to place on view, but that the development of the commercial vehicle was proceeding at such a pace that the psychological moment must soon arrive when it would need a show entirely to itself, the society decided upon taking the step, which is now a matter of history, of dividing the exhibits and holding two shows. In doing so, however, it desired to depart in no way from the chief principle of its existence, so far as shows are concerned, and it had no intention of allowing its members, or any of them, to contravene that ninciple by showing the same constructions at both shows ander a different appellation, for it must be clearly underitooml that, although the society is now holding two shows annually, these shows are most essentially different, and are really two separate and distinct sections of the same exhibi:ion ; in other words, not only is no member asked to exhibit :vice in one year, but, so far as the society is concerned, it will not Let him do so if wishes, if it is in the power of the society to prevent him. And this is where the trouble comes n. When the descriptions of the exhibits for the catalogue
j cg,an to reach the offices, it was seen that a number of haus were, for instance, proposing to show vehicles described as " traveller's broughams," and, as at least one of these :ars was known to the committee to be just simply a motor 3rougham, it was felt that it was hardly "playing the zame" for an exhibitor to show a brougham at the Novem)er show and at the spring event to try and get another showing of the same vehicle by the mere subterfuge of preixing the word " traveller's " to its description, so all firms
w ere notified that cars which did not come within the scope mf the exhibition would be excluded, and that all cars would me very carefully inspected before being allowed to be shown.
Many of the exhibitors possibly thought this notice was inc which was not intended to be carried out, or else they :oncluded, having got their vehicles ready for exhibition, :hat they would take the chance of their being " spotted," or quite a number of vehicles placed on view on the open.ng of the show were found to consist of identically the same :hasSis exhibited in November, some with practically identiml bodies, only differing in title or description, and others with " box " or van bodies substituted for the tonneau bodies .ximilmited upon them before. A very careful inspection of :he exhibits was made by the committee, and a considerable :lumber of exhibitors were much perturbed upon receiving a aotification to the effect that their exhibit annearing to the ).ommittee to be more in the nature of a pleasure vehicle, )r chassis, than a commercial one, the exhibitor must either remove it from the exhibition, or, if he elected to keep it there, the committee would understand that it was the firm's type of commercial vehicle and would accept it as such, but that, this being so, of course the firm would dearly understand that they would not be allowed to show it next NovemOer—decidedly a diplomatic move on the part of the society, throwing the onus of classification upon the exhibitor and avoiding argument.
In effect, the society says to the exhibitor : " This is your commercial vehicle chassis, is it? Well, we're very glad to know it. Only don't try and tell us it is your pleasure car chassis later on." This is all very well and very pretty, so far as it goes, but the trouble comes in here that, so far as rnotorcabs are concerned, very many of them are just motor landaulets, Simply that and nothing more, and, of the rest, nine-tenths of them are merely cab bodies put on to the same chassis (the firms making them usually supply with tonneau or other touring bodies on them when required),
whilst pretty much the same thing obtains in connection with the lighter form of delivery van. There can be no mistaking the motor omnibus for a private vehicle, nor can there be any doubt in the case of. vans and.lorries designed to take, say, a couple of tons and upwards, but, when it Domes to cars for loads up to isewt., or a ton, it is found that a considerable number of firms are entering the commercial vehicle trade, by catering for this class of demand with their standard _pleasure car chassis and an interchange of body. These firms and the cab builders are the ones who are hit by the committee's decision, and who complained about it, but it is difficult to see how the society could adopt any other course. Were it to permit firms, by merely changing the bodies, or the names of the vehicles, to make them either the one or the other,, as they chose, it would be giving the firms making the lighter cla.ss of vehicle an unfair .advantage in the matter of shows, over their competitors who manufacture the more distinctive types, and, so far at any rate as the goods delivery type of car is concerned, the decision of the committee was all in the interests of the public, for some makers might argue that, as the pleasure car often carries its roewt. to r5cwt. or more of load, and the lighter forms of delivery van only have to do the same, the one chassis, with perhaps a lower gearing for the commercial car, is equally suitable for either and consequently its employment for both types of vehicle is perfectly legitimate. If the premise were correct the conclusion would be just. But is it so? I think not.
It is true the load may be the same in both cases, but the work required of the one is very different from that required of the other. In the first place, the one load is a "live " one, whilst the other is dead weight, and that consideration alone would call for a stronger and heavier construction of the commercial than the pleasure chassis. Then, too, the work is both more and harder in the former case th.an in the latter. A delivery van in regular .daily use will cover three times as much ground in the year as the average car of equivalent power will be called upon to do .in pleasure service only. The constant stopping and restarting and changing of gears, which falls to the lot of the parcels delivery cart, is ten times as much as would be the Case were Lime same chassis used for pleasure driving instead, which calls for stronger gears, if not, indeed, for an entirely different design. Further than this, the .pleasure car will usually be found to be in the hands of a more intelligent and experienced driver. More often than not it will be driven by its owner, whereas the delivery van will be entrusted to some heavy-handed raw youth, with no knowledge of the why and wherefore of things, and no •sense of " feeling " for his car, and this will be a very important point in determining the sort of use---or abuse—it is likely to get in the handling, which again results in the need for both stronger construction and simpler design when commercial vehicles are under consideration, in addition to all of which it is a moot point whether, although it may be made to" do," the needs of the commercial user do riot call for an entirely different design of the vehicle as a whole. Hence, :although the decision of the society at first sight appeared somewhat arbitrary, there is a method in its madness, working towards the ultimate good of the user, by compelling proper attention to be given to the needs of the commercial vehicle by its builders, even where the lighter and cheaper types are concerned, for it must not be forgotten that reliability and lasting qualities are important requirements in the business car. Unless cars are sent out which will give the best of service for the purpose for which they are required, considerable harm will be done to the industry as a whole. It is even more important that the smaller and cheaper vehicles should be reliable than their larger brethren, seeing that the users of such 'vehicles can, as a rule, less afford to suffer loss, and that many ultimate buyers of cars of larger calibre commence With the smaller and less costly types by way of experiment. If they find these expensive in upkeep, and unsatisfactory in use, they are apt to be put off commercial .motoring altogether.